Judgment S.K.Jha, J. 1. The only question which falls to be decided in this case is as to whether a suit of the instant nature can be held to be maintainable in view of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The application in revision is directed against the order dated 16-9-1981 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 145 of 1981. By the impugned order the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the suit was maintainable and the provisions of the Act could not stand as a bar to the maintainability of the suit. 3. The short facts relevant for the disposal of this application are these 5 The plaintiffs (opposite Parties) instituted a suit for injunction against the petitioners restraining them from retrenchment of the three opposite parties by the management of the defendants-petitioners. The plaintiffs-opposite parties were engaged in the Malt Plant of Messrs S.K.G. Sugar Limited (Distillery Section) which is an industry under the management of Messrs S.K.G. Sugar Limited. The Malt section of the petitioners was not functioning and, therefore, the services of the plaintiffs-opposite parties were alleged to be surplus. A notice of retrenchment under the Act was served on them. A copy of notice of retrenchment has been marked Annexure-1 to the application. 4. When the suit was instituted for the relief as mentioned above, namely, to restrain the petitioners from retrenching their services, the defendants-petitioners raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Act the suit was not maintainable. The Court below has, for all practical purposes, held that since the petitioners had not moved the appropriate government for making a reference, it was open to the plaintiffs-opposite parties to agitate that matter in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Yaduvansh Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in the instant case the notice of retrenchment had already been served on the plaintiffs-opposite parties. Thereafter, it has so transpired that at the instance of these very plaintiffs-opposite parties, the Union moved the appropriate government for making a reference under Sec.10 of the Act. 5. Mr. Yaduvansh Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in the instant case the notice of retrenchment had already been served on the plaintiffs-opposite parties. Thereafter, it has so transpired that at the instance of these very plaintiffs-opposite parties, the Union moved the appropriate government for making a reference under Sec.10 of the Act. The original copy received by the Management petitioner from the State government making a reference under Sec.10 of the Act has been produced before me after it had already been shown to the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. In that view of the matter by virtue of the notification dated 16-9-1982 issued by the State government, the instant suit cannot be held to be maintainable. 6. Mr. Karuna Nidhan Keshav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prasad Vishwakarma V/s. Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Patnaand Ors. -- . for the purpose of establishing that if the reference had been made at the instance of the Union, then the plaintiffs-opposite parties, although members of the Union, will not be deemed to be any party in the reference made under the Act. The Supreme Court decision. I am afraid, was before the insertion of Sec.2-A in that Act. By virtue of the amendment, now an industrial dispute can be raised by an individual workman also. In the absence of such a provision, the Supreme Court held that any individual member of the Union, on account of whom the Union may have sponsored his cause, will not make it incumbent upon the Tribunal to give a personal hearing to the aggrieved workman since he had no locus stand under the Act. The amendment, therefore, in my view, has brought about a radical change in that concept. Be that as it may, the most damaging part of the case of the plaintiffs-opposite parties in the application filed before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, in the department of Labour of the State Government for issuing a notification with regard to the reference is signed by all the three plaintiffs-opposite parties along with the four others as representing the Union. Be that as it may, the most damaging part of the case of the plaintiffs-opposite parties in the application filed before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, in the department of Labour of the State Government for issuing a notification with regard to the reference is signed by all the three plaintiffs-opposite parties along with the four others as representing the Union. The question, therefore, as to whether, an individual workman can, under the amended provision after the insertion of Sec.2-A in the Act, be deemed to be represented for both for himself and for the Union remains wholly academic because it has been established in this Court that the application on behalf of the Union had been signed by all the three plaintiffs-opposite parties. Factually, therefore, they have elected to go to the competent authority under the Act. In that view of the matter, the present suit must be held to be not maintainable specially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Premier Automobiles Limited V/s. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and Ors. -- 7. In the result this application is allowed. The order of the Court below is set aside and the suit is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.